header-logo header-logo

02 June 2011
Issue: 7468 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No blanket ban on referral fees

LSB to undertake further review in 2013

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has rejected an outright ban on referral fees.

It consulted last year on its recommendations to strengthen transparency rather than a ban as a means of preventing abuse. It has now fully endorsed this approach, in its document, Referral Fees, Referral Arrangements and Fee Sharing.

However, the eight individual regulators can still opt for a ban as long as they can back it up with evidence and reasons. They must ensure consumers know when and to whom referral fees are to be paid.

The Law Society said it was a “mistaken decision by the LSB, which has failed to act in the public interest”.

However, Seamus Smyth, president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, welcomed the decision: “Robust controls are, however, required and the payment of cash incentives should be banned.”

Tim Oliver, president of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers, said the proposals “raise concerns at the potential for a mish-mash of regulatory decisions on referral fees... The LSB states in its paper that it wants to ensure a ‘consistent regulatory approach to the issue’—it is hard to see how that might be achieved.”

The LSB said it would take into account the extent to which consumer outcomes are served when considering applications by regulators to change their regulatory arrangements. It will also undertake a further review of referral fees in 2013–14.

David Greene, partner at Edwin Coe, said: “Opposition to payments made by solicitors for business is a rare point on which Lord Justice Jackson and the Law Society can agree.

“Jackson saw referral fees reflecting surplus costs in the system but others argue that a ban on referral fees would merely see a shift of cost from referral fees to other methods of generating business.”

Professor Dominic Regan said: “Given that the thrust of this administration is to reduce what Lord Young considered to be `meddlesome intervention’ I see no will to legislate on referral fees. At best we will see guidelines and unenforceable principles laid down.”

Issue: 7468 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll